6 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 25.4 ms ] thread
Matt Levine on Robinhood and payment for order flow, in February 2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-05/robinh... (https://archive.is/jlhzz)
Matt Levine is my favorite source of insight into the nitty-gritty of financial markets. He has an uncanny ability to take what would be the most boring minutiae and turn it into a fascinating and well told story.

I don’t see a problem with what Robinhood is doing. I don’t trade stocks all day. I’m not worried about 10 cents price improvement. By the time I enter my limit price and click buy or sell the price has already ticked up or down.

I buy the stocks that I think will go up over time.

There’s a psychological impact of commissions. When you click the button you have immediately lost money. Now you have to make it up!

I don’t want to be reminding myself “ah, but I paid the $2.34 commission and got my 10 cents price improvement so I came ahead by $1 on a $1000 trade”. Or whatever the actual numbers add up to be.

If the price was $58.10 and I put $58.50 limit (so it doesn’t tick away from me before I click) and the order gets executed at my limit or less and I pay no commission, it seems like I would’ve gotten what I wanted.

Yeah we all know data brokering is lucrative and is the core of the advertising tech conglomerates.

There is no need to pretend to make it more controversial because individuals are placing bets at a brokerage firm.

It is the same concept with the same solution. User data should be considered user property, as opposed to a mere byproduct of user existence.

If you don't charge for X then the majority of your revenue comes from NOT(X).
Relief check's fat, don't stack any sats / Work at McDonald's but I wear different hats / They said, the risk is all here / We could be jacked up, levered up better for here / I can't count the dollars I have saved / One by one they all just fade away